NYCweboy

The Election Results: Yes, They Could... But It's Not Very Likely

In the end, it came down to expecting more: even Bob McDonnell couldn't deliver the expected 20 point rout of Creigh Deeds, just 19. We expected more drama, less certainty, more divisiveness, less muddle. We got none of it... and what we deserved. So now what?

If there's a thread to link a variety of mixed election results it seems, largely, like what I thought going in: this was anger, by and large that was taken out on the nearest and most incumbent... and beyond that, there's not much to tell, because Republicans have no idea how to capitalize on what actually worked.

Conservatives might have gotten their dream of a "right wing revival" storyline... but all those eggs in the NY 23 basket were a mistake - the results made clear that internal right side dissension mostly hurts their side, sweeping Bill Owens to a modest victory (no Democrat since before the Civil War in that region), and showing that national intervention in local elections is usually a bad idea. Conservatives had argued that a tight three way tie which Owens prevailed in would help their cause with Owens too weak to pull the seat in a two way future race; but Scozzafava managed to wreck that by dropping out, endorsing Owens... and remaining on the ballot to pull just enough votes to wreck Hoffman.

Conservatives may deny the obvious message in the loss, but that doesn't mean their ability to wreck the careers of moderates isn't suicidial: Voters who were angry enough to pick Scozzafava over Hoffman after she "dropped out" are Republicans who don't like the far right wing, and don't mind making it heard, and don't care that a Democrat would win as the result. That can't help the far right, and has little or nothing to do with anyone outside of the ever narrowing circle on their side. The failure to win NY 23 is huge, has enormous national implications (Marco Rubio, your clue phone is ringing) and will probably be the latest example in right wing denial over reality, a reality that clearly suggests that internal divisiveness and narrowing of the base is hurting, not helping Republicans. And it can't be stopped.

The Anger Is Real; The Right Wing Revival Is Not.

Off year election season is just kind of weird; in the "24 hour news" age, there's a whole political evaluation machine sitting around, little to do... and there's always a "trend report" needed for the next year.

And of course, there's the off chance that something real is actually happening.

Virginia and New Jersey's races for Governor always serve as the bellweather of their years, since they make easy commutes for northeastern reporters based in the NY-DC axis, and in both cases are the rather disrespected cousins of the neighboring metropolis. And usually, they don't necessarily tell us all that much, since both have fairly unique characters ("unique" is one of those adjectives a New Yorker can love when referring to the world across the Hudson, and that view is even stronger across the Potomac).

Still, with Jon Corzine struggling and Republicans poised to retake Virginia, something's clearly happening. The question is... is it proof of some sort of Republican, or right wing, revival, an indictment of failure so soon after Obama's election?

My own guess... kind of yes, kind of no. There's a lesson in this year's elections for the left... and for the right. But not what I suspect many people think it is.

Silence of the Dudebros

I was struck - but not surprised - by the relative silence over a Sunday front page NYT article about the White House's "DudeBro" problem: the reality that the President is surrounded by the lefty equivalent of the all male "boys club" mentality that can be found many places, including Washington politics.

The president, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

I think the relative silence was in part a shrug of obviousness: this is not new, and really has been dogging the Obama folks since the campaign with Hillary Clinton - who, wouldn't you know it, gets to be cited as the "we don't have a woman problem" example since she is now Secretary of State. I suspect that many feminists are wondering mostly why it took everyone this long to figure out the obvious.

Of course the "DudeBro" problem is a problem; and, of course, it goes a long way to explaining why the Administration has a variety of problems dealing with a number of women's issues and, by extension, the problems that have developed with gay and lesbian activists as well. When you surround yourself, comfortably, with mostly straight guys who share your straight guy interests... you get, well, comfortably DudeBro.

What's remarkabel, to me anyway, is watching the regression of progress I figured couldn't really be shaken; we're re-arguing issues that I feel like should have been settled long ago. The rise in anti-feminist stupidity, not just crassly sexist, but frankly disturbing anti-woman presentations in advertising and media, is deeply concerning. Or the stupefying conversations I've had - most recently at Red's wedding - suggesting that "gays have to be patient" when looking for progress on, say, Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Mustn't rock the boat. Must realize... this could be controversial, And difficult.

There's a sense that we're either moving forward on stuff like this... or slipping back. And, unfortunately, I think it's fairly obvious that the backsliding on progress for women and gays is systemic, and has everything to do with a comfortable, casual sexism that's taken hold, even as we mouth platitudes about progress and "change" since the election. Who cares if the President plays golf with only men? Or sets up basketball tournaments among the DudeBros? Hey... he's way better than that last guy! And his stay-at-home, no career of her own wife? That's her choice!

The point is... these are choices, in the most problematic sense. They are choices to accept the status quo, to not do the hard work - the teaspoon work as Melissa McEwan puts it - of challenging every prevailing notion of sexism and "traditional" expectations. As my female dinner companion - a well connected political woman in DC - told me about her thinking to finally change jobs after several years, she wouldn't contemplate working in the White House - "I like my family and my life too much" she said. That, of course, shouldn't be the choice. And when it is... it's not surprising that women, collectively, opt for alternative choices.

I suspect we're stuck with the DudeBro problem for some time to come; and like a number of entrenched, ignored, and often dismissed observations about a systemic problem with the supposed "progressiveness" of the Obama Administration that state obvious relaities... I also suspect that they're indicative of the growing political rumblings that the Democratic Establishment might consider owning up to, rather than denying. There's a reason that dissatisfaction seems to be growing, why surface notions that "everything is fine, and politics is hard and progress is slow" don't really suffice as defenses of the Obama Administration's weaknesses (and "we're way better than the last guy" is really... just getting old). If we can't admit and face that not everything is golden with this White House, we can't change it. And if we can't change it... then people will look elsewhere for the progress they seek. Bet on that, Dude.

The Blonde Leading The Blonde

As I was flipping around morning news TV - a fool's errand if ever there was - I tripped over a little informative fact I'd missed, that along with Liz Cheney, Debra Burlingame has become a Board member/spokesmodel for Keep America Safe, the new "let's compain about Obama and foreign policy" group that prefers to call itself concerned with advocating for the "policies that kept us safe for the past 8 years."

There's plenty to debate in those notions, but I was struck by the appearance of Burlingame; in case you've missed her, Burlingame is the sister of one of the pilots of American flight 77, which crashed into the Pehtagon on 9/11. In the aftermath, among a number of other family members of victims, Burlingame moved into a fairly prominent role, speaking out for the concerns of families, and more generally, revealing herself to be a fairly traditional notion of a conservative woman.

It's not surprising that Burlingame's wound up in the Cheney group... but I think it gives a good indication of just what Keep America Safe is about... and what it isn't. And it seems likely that we'll have another semi-serious, pseudo-activist  group to watch and groan by, should we tune into those 24 hour news channel programs where people largely unconnected to things actually happening opine about how their easy to predict viewpoints reflect fresh, deep insight into the issues of today. The combination of Cheney and Burlingame - both so camera and soundbite ready - will likely be yet another exasperating example of what isn't happening in our political discourse, and harder to counteract because the objectionable lines will come from attractive blonde women.

And it's that familiar approach to dressing up conservatism that's got me this morning.

All Of Your Promises... Why Did I Believe?

I'm not sure why anyone was surprised.

I'm not actually sure anyone was surprised. Since President Obama's speech last night to the Human Rights Campaign, most of the reaction has been between the unsurprised and disappointed... and the unlikely to be surprised and condescending. But the conclusion appears to be the same: no one expected President Obama to offer much that was new at HRCF, no actual policy change, no actual delivery of an action... just, well, more of the same rhetoric that says we gays should be really, really glad that someone, finally, is willing to stand up and tell us that, eventually, something will be done.

How silly... we thought that meant actually doing it.

I think Charles Lemos at MY DD pulls together the best, wittiest reactions:

It's not that I have lost faith on LGBT issues in the President, I haven't. I'm sure he will move the ball forward on a number of LGBT issues but none of those are going to happen tomorrow. Here's more honesty for Obama from his friends.

John Aravosis asks Where's the Beef?:

Barack Obama just promised us that if he becomes president, he's going to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and get ENDA passed. It was a bit surreal. I'm sitting at a fundraiser for the No on 1 effort in Maine (that Obama didn't even bother to mention), and we were all just speechless (actually, hardly speechless - and I thought yelling at the TV was long since over). Obama repeated his campaign promises. That was it.

Up in Seattle, The Stranger's Dan Savage is also a tad underwhelmed:

My reaction: a friend has been sending me ecstatic emails about the speech. I just watched it--the speech is every bit as good as the ones candidate Obama gave, as the performance candidate Obama delivered at the HRC/Logo Democratic Primary Debate, as the open letter to the LGBT community that candidate Obama released before last November's election. Imagine all the wonderful things this guy is going to accomplish if he ever actually gets elected president. In other words: sorry, folks, nothing new to see here. Pledges, promises, excuses. Lip service.

I don't think the election of Barack Obama was bad news for gay people; but it wasn't great news, either. Everything - and I do mean all that's happened, since the campaign he started - has pointed to a nice, well meaning guy, who knows that gays are part of the lefty coalition... but doesn't really have a feel for gay issues, or why we have a sense of urgency around them. He's not gay. He doesn't know a lot of gay people, or count gay people, especially gay men, among his closest intimates. That's the reality. And out of that reality you get, I think, what we should have probably known well enough to expect: the right words, the wrong actions, and a sense of impatience with anyone who says well, that's not good enough.

It's not, and last night's speech was more of the same, dressed up, as it always is, with the interpretations of people who insist that we evaluate Obama in the future tense. It's great - he wants to end discrimination by the miliotary, he wants to, in theory, provide better protection for gay people who get married (while, of course, not actually supporting our right to do so nationwide). Isn't this great? What more could you ask for?

Well, actually doing any of those things, for starters.

Promises, promises... not really what I need.

You Better Work!

(This post was inspired by a post by my friend Red over at her Poverty Blog at Change.org... and expands - widely - on a comment I put up over there.)

Every so often, the left side of the blogosphere gets caught up in discussing the plight of American workers - how bad we have it, how much disparity we have in income (which is what happens when CEOs make multimillion salaries while hourly workers can get less than minimum wage), how bad our benefits are (health reform!), and how, compared to many countries, we get very little time off for vacation or illness.

I always have mixed feelings about these things - and the way America differs from other countries when it comes to notions of vacation and sick time. I think a lot of this is tied to our work ethic, and it's worth noting that people who have time available, often, rarely take it. And that, for many, the problem isn't time, and for businesses the problem isn't money... it's the question of who can do the task of another when that person needs to take time off.

The reason for problems in retail and food service around sick time is about carrying extra bodies - especially now, in a recession, when most retail operations are running close to the bone on staff, the question of a person calling out sick can mean havoc for those who are left. I've worked in department and specialty stores for a long time, and currently for Starbucks. Losing a worker to an illness or a long term outage of another sort deeply affects our ability to be fully staffed, and puts enormous pressure on the rest of our team... and ultimately, what suffers is our ability to provide good service, which leads to a bad customer experience... which leads to loss of business ("I tried to buy a blouse at Macy*s... and there were no cashiers!"). And so, very often, conscientious workers, even with illness, tend to show up. Sick time, in these cases, isn't necessarily all of the issue.

I also spent time as a worker in corporate HR, at a company with generous vacation, sick and maternity benefits (which tried, especially, to be family friendly, with sensitive policies for moms and dads). And, as often as not, our problems were as much about workers refusing to take time as it was workers who took too much - and a lot of time spent coaching managers that they could not set unreasonable time expectations for their teams based on their own driven workstyles. Even so, for many workers, there was still a problem of coverage and replace-ability; losing an assistant for days or weeks was simply putting additional work on other assistants with full workloads.  But the alternative - carrying extra staff - was not an option, either (and an unfamiliar, expensive temp also rarely afforded a good solution).

My point isn't to suggest that as a nation, we don't have a problem with sick time that deserves to be addressed; my point is that we have a complicated set of cultural norms and expectations around work in America that drive our policies and processes. Government mandates for sick time benefits (which will be hard to get past business lobbying anyway) do not guarantee that sick time will get taken, or that workers will feel less pressured to show up, even when ill. Changing that requires a longer, broader, cultural conversation around work, and our lives outside of work. We really don't have that conversation very much, I find. And we could certainly use it.

But I think to have that conversation, we also need to see a new paradigm develop, on the left, about how we talk about working, and workers. Since last year's election, with progressive ideas enjoying a fresh momentum, the discussion around labor issues has returned... well, to Big Labor. Despite the fact that the majority of Americans are no longer unionized - and many can't, or won't, wind up being unionized - the discussion of labor issues starts, on the left, often, from a place where unions are the first, best option. That protecting workers works best when the workers are united. It's lovely thinking... it's just not our reality.

After working on a Congressional campaign, my campaign manager boss wanted to run for City Council - which she did, ultimately, and won - and she started by sitting with her key staff and talking about what a run would take. One thing that came up, because she felt strongly about it, was that she wanted to be critical of the teacher's union, one of the most powerful in New York. And, ever the contrarian, I raised the traditional lefty point: how do you win by pissing off union workers? How can you say unions are bad?

As I said, she ran, and won... and she remained a vocal critic on education, and especially of the teacher's union... which, over time, managed to marginalize her and eventually get her off the Council. Which kind of proved my point. But over time... I've come to see hers.

I am not anti-union - no one, I think, can seriously claim true liberal or progressive thinking without supporting the notion of organized workers - but I think how we think about labor, labor organzing, and our working lives in America, has to change among liberals, and soon... or we can't make the kind of progress that needs, desperately, to be made. We need, as progressives, to understand and admit that  the interests of all workers and the interests of organized labor are not always the same. And we need to face up to the business realities that sometimes union rules and requirments can work against good business practices. And that includes popular unions like the Teachers, auto workers, and healthcare workers. The tension between what's good for unions, and what's good for other workers needs to be brought out into the open and examined... or we can't make further progress. For anyone.

And no issue reflects those tensions - our old labor thinking not fitting our current problems - than on questions like vacation and sick leave and other worker benefits. Thinking, simply, in terms of a government mandate to require the availability of time off won't get it done. Business interests are arrayed against it; but just as importantly, as I mentioned, the work we do, and how we think about it, colors how we approach using the benefits we already have, and what benefits we expect. More vacation time... will not mean more vacations. More sick time will not reduce our public health problems. Not until we seriously talk, in the culture, about a different idea for our work ethics, and a different approach to our working lives.

Health reform is another key example - unions, for instance, are not necessarily thrilled about plans to tax so called "Cadillac plans" that offer better benefits at increased cost; often because unions have managed to negotiate such plans for their workers (ah, being united might pay off in benefits? Who knew?). But more centrally, the problems we have with healthcare stem from 60 plus years of tying our healthcare benefits to our working lives; and perhaps the most problematic element of "reform" under discussion - and the least thought through - is that many of the reforms under discussion would further solidify, rather than reduce, our links between healthcare and employment. And in part, it's seeing that we link healthcare and employment... because we think pretty much everyone can, and should, be employed.

It fascinates me - much as it has my mother, in all of her professional life - that so much of who we are as Americans (that is, our working lives and how much who we are is tied up in what we do) is often talked about so little, and rarely with a clear eye for the work we actually do. We continue to talk, often, about work as if we are a country dominated by manufacturing and farming... when we are in fact a country dominated by service work, retail jobs, and white collar professions. We are more specialized, more productive because of technological advancements... and less able to replace one another mindlessly as we were on assembly lines and in the harvest (we think, in fact, of retail service work as mindless... when it's not). Until we can refocus our discussion of work on the work we actually do... I don't think we can figure out how to reshape our working lives. And more to the point... I'm not sure, culturally, that we actually want that. Until we talk about it, though... we'll never know.

How.... get back to work!

Across The Battle Lines In Joe Wilson's War

I'm not all that upset by Representative Joe Wilson's "You're a liar!" outburst during Wednesday's speech by President Obama. It's a free country with the right to speak... and yeah, I guess that includes yelling at the President while he's giving a speech. You're free to do it, that's for sure.

It's also rude, and really kind of inappropriate.

That Republicans and conservatives can't decide whether to be happy or upset about Wilson is a reminder, really, of what a mess they're in as a party. As much as Wilson managed to hijack the coverage of the speech (which, yes, I think was very well done), and probably pressed the hot button of health insurance for illegal immigrants, after 8 years of complaining that President Bush was thoroughly disrespected by liberals, and that's bad... suddenly Wilson, you know... was probably just "speaking truth to power."

I tend to think this reflexive "you have to show respect for the presidency" stuff is a bit overblown; one of our great distinguishing aspects, as Americans, is that the President is one of us, not better than all of us. He's picked by us, from among us, and he remains one of us. All men - all of us - are created equal. If we're equal, then the level of respect we're looking for is the common decency you show others, not some magical extra special respect or reverence. It's an aspect of conservatism - the reflexive genuflecting to the notion of your "betters" by title or social class - that I think liberals, in our far more egalitarian notions of these things, pretty much reject outright.

Still, the point is that Wilson's outburst wasn't some blot on the Presidency... it's that, common decency and rude behavior are inappropriate on a solemn occasion. It's happening more and more, particularly as the outlandish charges and pointless debates wail on. It's the nonsense of the "birther" movement and the fact that Republicans can't simply set  it aside. And much more. That the right - still - can't draw a line and call something out of bounds, even something as basic as, well, an inappropriately rude outburst, reflects how deeply they've failed to center themselves around mutual, basic principles of civil discourse, debate over actual issues, or proposals that are focused on improving the common good. This is childish, we can't back down, every tantrum gets to be shouted and yelled and pushed around. And it leads... basically, to chaos. 

The really smart move, I think, which would have catapulted Wilson to a new kind of leadership within the GOP would have been for the man himself to draw the line. If Wilson came to the microphone, called himself out for being inappropriate, said something to the effect of "we can have disagreements, but we should do it with some basic level of decency and respect" and taken responsibility for lowering our discourse... I think he'd have shown remarkable, hard to argue with moxie. Chances are, privately, he knows it was a bit much and probably went too far. But backing down? Heck no... that's weak. And so he sort of apologized, now sort of took it back, and gets to be a conservative hero... even as his days in Congress may well be numbered.

Joe Wilson doesn't have to apologize. The Presidency will not rise or fall on the basis of a heated, and fairly foolish, outburst in a joint session of Congress. Nor is the point here, really, about debating the semantics of prohibiting illegal immigrants from having health insurance - like most of the immigration debate, there's more heat than light in this charge, and serious consideration of immigration reforms is about a lot more than health insurance, anyway. But then... these are not serious people. If they were, someone would know enough to draw a line, and say Wilson crossed it. And then, they'd leave him on the other side, to battle it out alone.

The Labor of Preserving Illusions Or Letting Them Go

More than most Labor Days, I suspect that this year's official "end of summer" (yes, yes, autumnal equinox is 2 weeks away... but you know what I mean) is meant to be a real "restart" for many people and many issues. Summer in America is all about escape, and our escapist tendencies, I think, have kicked in a little more than ever in this post economic apocalypse year. Take the vacation while you can... or don't worry about the job search until later... I've just seen a lot of "I'll think about it tomorrow" or more like next month, especially all through August.

Tomorrow, a lot of that putting off will come due, especially in terms of our national politics. In two days, President Obama is giving two major speeches, one to "reset" the health care debate, the other to indoctrinate children into his unholy schemes to... oh, sorry. Just kidding.

The serious side is that President Obama will return to the national stage - and let's give credit to him actually taking "vacation" seriously enough to not make a lot of public appearances, except for the most necessary one (Kennedy's funeral) - to a nation that is not what it was, even a few months ago. The distinct sense that there's more bad than good right now, that people are growing disillusioned with the President, Congress, and government generally, can't really be ignored. Whether anyone, even the President, can fix that, remains to be seen.

But in some ways, contrarian that I am, I think "disillusion" is the wrong word - perhaps the more useful way to think about what's changed, especially over August, is that illusions, dreams, and fantasies have come hard up against some necessary realities. The limits of Presidential power, of the potential for massive progressive change, of stopping real change solely through fear, anger and desperation... these things needed to sink in. And maybe, when President Obama returns to the national stage, we can see him in a more realistic, human way... and begin to make progress - however slowly - on the real problems we face.

Get Off The Crazzy* Train

What's amazing (to me anyway) about the "speech to schoolkids" flap is that we're trying to take this seriously. The crazy assertions about a "socialist agenda", the cries of "indoctrination".... all of this is so thoroughly absurd, and yet somehow, there has to be some attempt to "respect" an alternative viewpoint.

Bollocks. Though I suspect that with each new addition to the crazy train, it's becoming clearer that this stuff is just getting more and more "out there", we've got to move more firmly to draw a line, and realize that it's been crossed. And stop pretending that there's anything here worth debating. That means letting go of reflexive defensiveness when crazy conservatives use hot button words like "socialist" and "fascist" to throw a generalized label over their opponents. It means ignoring and marginalizing foolish activities like bizarre boycotts, misplaced "marches", dopey "tea parties" and the like. Don't treat these absurdities as news, don't give the sensationalists the attention they crave... and when you do talk about them, be clear about what they are: fringe elements and outliers, whose bizarre assertions aren't just fabricated... they're not worth serious consideration. Of any sort.

Look, never mind the part about Obama selling some sort of blinkered "socialism" as if liberal ideas were dirty and foreign; consider the absurd notions of "indoctrination" as if any kid could be thoroughly brainwashed by a speech. On television. By some old guy in a suit. This isn't how indoctrination works. And indeed, the more salient point is... indoctrination generally doesn't work. And Americans - who have culturally enshrined a notion of free thinking, questioning authority and challenging symbols of status quo and the establishment - really have neither the patience, nor the discipline, for it.

I think the left has three main foibles that let this stuff gain traction - a decided willingness to give everyone a chance to share, in a forum of mutual respect; a reverence for the right to dissent; and a fear of seeming, well, too authoritarian and rigid. Add those things up, and you get an amazing breadth of room for crazzy* cons to offer up their best outlandishness, without evidence, or grounding in reality, or really, any connection to reality at all.

The day may not be today... but I think the national tolerance for this kind of asinine pointlessness is evaporating quickly, and for myself, I think it's time to say it - there's no reason to pay attention to this craziness, to take it seriously, or give it any place in a reasoned discourse. It's well past time for thinking, reasonable people to stop staring, stop arguing, and stop pretending. There's nothing to see here. Really... nothing. Let's get off the crazzy* train - and let it fly off the rails all on its own.

(* Years ago, my J in B would sing me Patsy Cline's "Crazy", but mispronounce it as "Crazzy" - i.e. wthout the long "a" sound - and for me, anyway, it became a shorthand way to refer to the "crazier than crazy"  people and events one runs into in every day life. So no, unlike my usual misspellings... it's not a typo. It's deliberate.)

Glennhoward Beck Beale

It's fun to talk about now nutty the Glenn Beck show is.

It's less funny - indeed, it's almost painful - to watch it.

If you're home at 5 - a time slot, one might recall, where Fox parked nearly as nutty John Gibson - you can try watching Beck; honestly, I get through about 7 minutes, tops before I just have to stop. People complain about Rush Limbaugh being toxic... but listening to Limbaugh's show is annoying mainly for the long and trying commercial breaks. Limbaugh himself? Disagreeable... but not nuts.

Beck's been bouncing around cable and radio for years, taken semi-seriously, largely dismissed as frings, but that changed when Fox made the decision to put him into the evening lead in slot (in a world where we accept that Neil Cavuto's lamer effort at 4 is ostensibly meant to be a Wall Street, business style wrap up of financial news). Since his arrival live at 5, Beck's sucked the oxygen out of taking much of cable news - and certainly most of Fox now - as a serious, respectable medium.

And to think, all he needed to do it was to make the fantasy of Network into reality.